May 26, 2012

A Reply to PZ Myers’ ‘Objective’ Moral Tools

I had posted an open letter to PZ and Skatje Myers regarding a subject that both PZ and Skatje have discussed at PZ’s blog, and that is the subject of bestiality.[1] PZ replied at his blog, but instead of answering the three simple questions I had asked, PZ launches off into rants with insults, twists my words, avoids my questions, changes the subject, and presents some subjective atheist 'moral tools' that are supposed to be the end-all of moral questions.[2] And, based on PZ's conclusion, all of these actions of his are supposed to imply that he is more objective than I am. Whatever.

Outline

I. Unravelling PZ’s twisted introduction

II. PZ’s non-answers and self-contradictions

III. PZ’s atheist presuppositonalism

And now, without further adieu, let's try to enter the mental realm of PZ Myers.

I. Unravelling PZ’s twisted introduction

The opening lines of PZ’s atheist moral rant offer a rather inventive narrative and a few ad hominem attacks thrown in for good measure. This sets the tone for his entire reply.

PZ claims that the only reason Christians question the basis of atheistic morality is because we all have the same motive. All of us Christians supposedly want to declare that “...you are an evil person because you do not derive your morals from the same source they do.”[3] I don’t know of any Christian in the world who would offer that premise based upon biblical sources. The scriptures teach that we need redemption because we are born with a sin nature. And this sin nature cannot be addressed by attempting to follow a moral code. PZ’s legalism is the opposite of the grace and salvation Christ offers.

The main reason I want to question this secular humanist moral foundation is because I see society slipping into a moral free fall wherein even the US military now allows bestiality as permissible behavior.[4] My goal is to show that bestiality can easily be justified through secular humanistic moral relativism and is being justified as such. This behavior does not make a person an evil person, but this should help open-minded atheists to reconsider the foundation of their beliefs. PZ Myers' question dodging and obfuscation should reveal to anyone with critical thinking abilities that PZ does not have an objective approach to understanding the nature of truth.

Further on in his moral rant, PZ offers a false statement about me: “In another example of the dishonest Christian gotcha, lately a thick-skulled Christian idiot name Rick Warden has been pestering me with email and comments demanding that I justify support for bestiality.”[5]

I have never demanded that PZ justify support for bestiality, neither have I claimed that PZ practices it. I have simply noticed that bestiality a subject that comes up at his blog, and PZ had never made a definitive stance on this subject. Even in his recent reply to me PZ has yet to take a clear and definitive stance on whether or not the practice should be legalized. PZ says Rick Warden is "demanding that I justify support for bestiality."[6] If that is true, PZ, show an actual quote of mine that reflects that, or admit that it is you who is being disingenuous and dishonest.

II. PZ’s non-answers and self-contradictions

If you can sift through all the ad hominem attacks and distractions, you’ll find that PZ did not answer one single question that I had asked him. The following are the three questions I had asked PZ:

1. Should bestiality be considered morally acceptable in your opinion?

Instead of stating whether or not bestiality should be considered morally acceptable in an objective sense, Myers simply states his own subjective opinion, “I do not support bestiality.”[8] But, even so, in his final conclusion PZ implies that bestiality is morally acceptable under certain conditions: “So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way.”[9]

It would be interesting to know specifically what the “limited set of specific conditions” are in which bestiality would be considered non-objectional to PZ. Mr. Myers offers no objective grounding or basis for deciding whether or not bestiality is acceptable. Instead, he offers his list of subjectively informed “tools” in an attempt to justify his views.

The subjective nature of his tools makes it quite difficult for PZ to answer my second question, “Should bestiality be legalized in your opinion?” Thus, PZ has still not answered it. If each person has their own subjective moral code, based on such things as their level of “interest” in animal sex, then there is not a strong basis for outlawing the behavior of bestiality.[10] Based on his conclusion, it would seem that PZ supports the legalization of bestiality but is simply afraid to admit it. If you read this, PZ, perhaps you could re-read (or read for the first time if that is the case) the three simple questions I had asked and offer some definitive answers this time. Please don't dodge questions. It does not put your atheism in a good light, does it?

III. PZ’s atheist presuppositonalism

PZ offers in his reply, “But we are capable of assessing it objectively, unlike these wretched Christians and their brains full of lies and disgust.”[11]

If you would have answered my simple questions, PZ, it would have been a sign that you are interested in objective truth. However, the fact is that you continuously avoid dealing with deep and important questions, and this reveals a personal bias, not an objective approach towards understanding truth. Truly objective thought requires that the field be wide open to any possible hypothesis. Atheists such as Myers, however, begin with an atheist presuppositionalism that is to be considered sacred and held above logical criticism. In Myers' most famous blog post he declared "Nothing must be held sacred."[12] But, in reality, atheism itself is held sacred by such atheists. This, of course, is not an objective approach towards truth.

Theists such as William Lane Craig do offer many logical arguments supporting foundational beliefs. It's fairly easy to prepare and defend logical arguments when truth is on your side. If Myers would like to try and refute one of my logical arguments, he is welcome to. The material universe offers a testimony of God's existence. I offer a seven part logical argument with a logical conclusion.[13] If Myers can show one of the premises is false or the argument is in an invalid form, then he can display the truth of atheism. Myers has publicly acknowledged that he refuses to debate William Lane Craig in any format, verbal or written, and it seems Myers will refuse to debate any Christians who capably demonstrate the principles of logic.[14]

Instead of being frustrated and just ranting and swearing about Christians who question the basis of their views, atheist presuppositionalists such as Myers should probably just admit up front that they have no interest in logically and objectively justifying the basis of their beliefs. Victor Reppert has outlined this non-objective attitude:

“What I suspect is that, deep down, a lot of skeptics are atheistic presuppositionalists. They think that in order to have evidence for something it has to have a naturalistic explanation, and to use inductive reasoning to support any claims with respect to the supernatural is to abuse the inductive reasoning process.

If that's the case, they shouldn't be saying we don't have the evidence, what they should be saying is that the kinds of claims Christians make are not the sorts of things that it is even logically possible to have evidence for.”[15]

I'll email a link of this post and an invitation to PZ to respond, but I doubt he will. He's probably too busy making up narratives about Christians and what he claims we believe, but don't.

113 comments:

Rick ... twists my words, avoids my questions, changes the subject...For you to complain about someone else doing these things, when these amount to the bulk of your activity on this blog (and I assume, by extension, your life generally) is hypocritical in the extreme Rick.

Warden: Xians do NOT have "objective morality" in the first place. You people see nothing wrong with biblegod having babies killed, having rapists marry their victims, etc...

What you clowns have is SUBJECTIVE MORALITY.

In other words: If an action like baby-killing was objectively wrong, it would still be wrong even if biblegod commanded it. If something is right just because of the being who does it, even though the same action would be wrong if anyone else does it, is "subjective morality".

Atheists are at least honest enough to admit that morals can change over time...we as a society are constantly trying to improve things.

You on the other hand have no right to blather on about refusing other's reasons for being "subjective" since that is all you people have.

You theists on the other hand pretend to have "objective" morals, and whenever an atheist give a whole bunch of reasons for a moral decision like Myers just did above people like you just throw up the "it's not OBJECTIVE" excuse to pretend that the atheists' reasons aren't good enough, or some such thing.

This is nuts...I honestly thought that you'd gotten spanked down on this and would have apologized to Myers for all this lunacy, or at least youd'd just shut up and go on to something else, but I underestimated how much animal sex is on your brain.

Good grief, Warden. Do you have any idea what you're doing when you say that only "objective" reasons (ie. biblegod says so) is the basis for morality?

That means that without biblegod telling people like you what to do and not to do, its people like you who would have no reason to do the activity in question.

In other words: By rejecting Myer's reasons against bestiality by their not being "objective", you're just revealed that without biblegod to tell you so, you would not really have any reasons to oppose bestiality.

No matter how many times this is pointed out to you people, the message never seems to sink in

Not to mention Christians like Rick create ridiculous caricatures of non-theistic morality to argue against, never trying to understand and actually interact with the far more complex reality of the moral systems with which he ought to be familiar with.

Of course, simplistic morality is all Rick seems to understand - "God good" is about as complex as he can manage, it seems.

Bubt Rick, since you have consistently failed to demonstrate that the morality outlined in your holy book is logically cohesive, you cannot make the claim that it is.

Since your holy book is filled with falsehoods and ignorant assumptions, not to mention outright immorality claimed as morality, why bother even trying to show it's moral system as cohesive - it quite obviously doesn't correspond to reality!

Rick: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.An unjustified assertion which can be ignored.

Rick: 2. Objective moral values do exist.An unjustified assertion which can be ignored.

Rick: 3. Therefore, God exists.While your syllogism is valid, it is not sound since neither of the premises appears to be true.

Rick: insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2). So what is the problem supposed to be?Well, premise 1, for a start. Despite me constantly asking for you to justify this premise some time ago, you completely failed to do so.Also, saying that God did something wrong does not necessarily afirm premise 2 either, since there are far more options available for a non-objective moralist than the strawman morality you have constructed in your mind.

Rick: The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct, but which is the true God? Not at all Rick. The question is still "Please justify the premises for your argument!"

Of course you wont do it, probably because WLC doesn't/can't do it. He admitted as much during the Q&A of his debate with Sam Harris:“Well, that would be my second contention that in the absence of God, I can’t see any foundation that would be left for affirming the objectivity of moral values and particularly the value of human beings and conscious life on this planet.” (at 1:43:58 of the debate video)

Craig's moral argument is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity, and it's only appeal seems to be to those who already believe - it's apologetics to comfort believers rather than serious philosophy.

And yet people like yourself, Rick, eat it up without any thought towards whether it is a good argument or not.

Havok pretty much beat me to it so I'll just add my two cents in the end:

WardenCraig is correct in stating that you are helping to offer evidence of God's existence. Consider Craig's argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.How so? The bible shows how hypocritical your god is when it comes to things like killing (murder) etc. so how can such a morally inconsistent being be the basis for "objective moral values"?

You mean to tell me that without someone ELSE telling you, that xians would have no idea if things like baby-killing, rape, etc are wrong?

What about the consequences for the people involved? What about the pain and suffering? What about the results for society in general if such behaviour was left unchecked?

Oh let me guess: That's not "objective" is it?

So what?

All you're doing again, is showing that xians, without biblegod to tell them, would have no reason to refrain from those actions listed above.

As I said earlier: No matter how many times it's mentioned, you people just don't seem to get the clue.

Mind you, I don't truly believe in "objective moral values" anyway, but still: It's stupid to pretend that your faith has it when all you really have is "SUBJECTIVE MORALITY" as I've explained before.

See my last post.

Warden2. Objective moral values do exist.Prove it. All I see are subjective moral values.

I said it once, I'll say it again: If objective moral values did exists, then things like killing babies would be wrong no matter who does it, man or god.

Warden3. Therefore, God exists.The stupidity of your position is exposed here Rick: You're using an unproven assumption (if anything biblegod's actions disprove it) of "objective morality" to prove the existence of your god in the first place.

It's the actions of your god and the rationalizations that are thrown up by people like you and Craig that show that you people have subjective morality, not "objective morality" in the first place.

WardenReynold, Just because you do not understand or agree with the God described in scripture this does not mean that the morality and ethics outlined in scripture are not logically cohesive.Uh huh. So baby-killing is WRONG when people do it, BUT it's A-OK to do that AND their pregnant mothers to boot when god says to do it.

It's an example of "Do as I say, not as I do", and people like WLC and Rick, who mount an apologetic for genocide, infanticide, and other atrocities simply because the bible God supposedly said it was a-ok, should be ashamed of themselves.They ought to wear a sign around their necks indicating that they're dangerous people, since who knows if/when they'll hear a "voice" in their head telling them to kill, attribute this delusional voice to their God, and go on a "morally justifiable" killing spree?

Theists such as William Lane Craig do offer many logical arguments supporting foundational beliefs. It's fairly easy to prepare and defend logical arguments when truth is on your side. If Myers would like to try and refute one of my logical arguments, he is welcome to. The material universe offers a testimony of God's existence. I offer a seven part logical argument with a logical conclusion.[13] If Myers can show one of the premises is false or the argument is in an invalid form, then he can display the truth of atheism.

You've offered it. It's been dismantled. Indeed, there are questions to it sitting open on this blog, that you've ignored since you decided to go after PZ Myers again about bestiality.

This is part of the *reason* he won't debate with people like you, Rick. Because your reaction to having your arguments dismantled is to go away, (as you did), distract (as you did), and then come back claiming no one has defeated your arguments.

If that's the case, they shouldn't be saying we don't have the evidence, what they should be saying is that the kinds of claims Christians make are not the sorts of things that it is even logically possible to have evidence for.”

Indeed, if you bothered to read much Pharyngula, you'd see that a while ago, *exactly* that issue became a hotspot on the blog, and still can be -- the idea that there is *no* way to provide convincing evidence for most of your claims.

I'll email a link of this post and an invitation to PZ to respond, but I doubt he will. He's probably too busy making up narratives about Christians and what he claims we believe, but don't.

Unlike you, who are too busy making up narratives about what atheists believe. Pot. Kettle. Black.

- No, you are living in a delusion. You offer no actual specific links to show quotes where these points I've raised by Craig have supposedly been disproved.

I was referring to your alleged "proof" , not Craig's, but as a free bonus: http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/ There's a whole blog, go knock yourself out.

And the only critique you have offered of my hierarchy argument is a "It's too narrowly defined - it's not fair..." kind of criticism

Are you *still* ignoring the entire thread about the Miller-Urey experiments, that undercut exactly what you claim? Apparently so.

Your argument was based on a false notion of hierarchy based on human metaphorical comparisons (e.g. electron "orbitals" being the same as planetary "orbits"), relying on a very specific definition that, indeed, shrank every time it was challenged, and that used a ludicrously narrow timeframe -- less than one-millionth of the universe's lifespan, on less than one one-billionth (to be generous) of its total area) -- for its claimed fundamental proving "observation". And, to top it all off, with all that already present, you couldn't come to a stronger conclusion than "It is most probable that..." -- which means your so-called "proof" of God's existence, even if all of its flaws were waved away, wouldn't meet the standard of conviction in a criminal court, let alone any higher standard of proof.

- Let me see, a critic has decided what Craig's use of the word universe must entail and then decides that Craig does not meet the said definition because another person, Dr. Vilenkin has answered a question in an email.

Professor Vilenkin had also sent me an email, it seems possibly at a later date:

Dear Rick,

Thanks for your message; I think your article is now very accurate.

Best wishes,

Alex

02/06/12

If you notice, Vilenkin does not seem to have a problem with the article or its title, written January 24, 2012:

Also, theories postulating multiverses are just that, theories not based on any empirical evidence.

Though there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for multiverse theories, atheists scientists had to come up with some explanation for the fine-tuned universe. An infinite number of universes out there somewhere would help to offer a chance that our universe 'just happened' as noted:

In 2008, cosmologist Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University of London, told a science journalist for Discover the following:

If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.

On the one hand you have empirical evidence that shows hierarchical systems are regularly created by intelligent humans. On the other hand, you have complete speculation that an endless amount of universes exist out there somewhere with no evidence.

William Lane Craig's Kalam argument is not unhinged by the possibility of endless universes that may possibly exist or bubble guppy universe creators or egg hatching universe creators because all of these are pure speculation and nothing more.

Without context, frankly, I don't trust you to misrepresent what he's agreeing with -- I've seen you change your words and misrepresent other people's far too many times.

Also, theories postulating multiverses are just that, theories not based on any empirical evidence.

They have just as much "empirical evidence" as creator-based theories. They rely on exactly the same evidence -- the material world. They also don't require as much special pleading for intelligence out of nothingness.

If you actually go back and look at the original *article*, instead of a single quote pulled out of context, you'll see that it's an explanation of why multiverse theory means we *don't* need a creator to explain fine-tuning, and, in fact, explains how multiverse theory can result from Vilenkian mathematics on sudden expansion. Try reading the actual source instead of a single quote designed to support your argument from authority.

On the one hand you have empirical evidence that shows hierarchical systems are regularly created by intelligent humans.

We also have empirical evidence that heirarchical systems created by intelligent humans are all flawed, as are we -- so clearly, by that reasoning, any alleged Creator was also flawed.

William Lane Craig's Kalam argument is not unhinged by the possibility of endless universes that may possibly exist or bubble guppy universe creators or egg hatching universe creators because all of these are pure speculation and nothing more.

As is his argument. What makes multiverse theory so hard to buy but the existence of an intelligence without its own creator easy? Welcome to the eternal regression.

imnotandrei: They have just as much "empirical evidence" as creator-based theories.They actually have more, since they're speculative extensions of established physics.Creator based theories are completely detached from empirical evidence.

imnotandrei: They also don't require as much special pleading for intelligence out of nothingness.If you're as attached to the idea of God as Rick appears to be, the special pleading seems to go unnoticed.

imnotandrei: We also have empirical evidence that heirarchical systems created by intelligent humans are all flawed, as are we -- so clearly, by that reasoning, any alleged Creator was also flawed.We also have no independant evidence apart from the thing being explained, for this non-human, supernatural "intelligence", and so it is an especially ad-hoc explanation.Also, since humans don't "create" anything, they just rearrange matter/energy, we have a poor analogy - humans "creativity" is not at all like the creativity it is being used to try to support.

Then we also have the problem that God, as traditionally conceived, would have no need for any fine tuning, and so any claims that things are fine tuned is actually evidence against the existence of such a being.

The fine tuning argument is so terrible on so many reasons it's a wonder that people appeal to it.

imnotandrei: As is his argument. What makes multiverse theory so hard to buy but the existence of an intelligence without its own creator easy? Welcome to the eternal regression.Let me try - since Rick is convinced beyond argument and evidence, that his God exists, it's obvious that this intelligence is to be preferred. To claim otherwise is to be claiming contrary to Rick's distorted reality, where everything is viewed through God tinted goggles.

Perhaps he'll try to present a non-fallecious argument in support of his claims, but given his track record, I wouldn't bet on it ;-)

(If you can't find your own posts, on your own blog, you're in more trouble than I thought.}

imnotandrei, You supposedly have offered some kind of rebuttal you believe is strong but you can't even identify one quote or link? Are you aiming to beat out Havok for most irrelevant commenter of the year?

>Go look here...

Wow, you can post a link. But no actual relevant quotes or points? How dissappointing.

>Sourcing Answers in Genesis undercuts your credibility significantly

- Focusing on the source and not the facts themselves is an extremely weak resonse.

>I call your attention to this (link)...

- Let's link to link to a link to a link and call it a valid point - not.

As I've noted countless times already, if you can't even summarize a point or points, there is no point in chasing down dead end rabbit holes of atheists who believe that posting a link is actually presenting an argument.

Posting a link or a series of them is meaningless if you cannot even summarize a point in all of your linking, it's just a big fat waste of time. But that is all that you atheist blog critics seem to have to offer; ad hom attacks and time wasting tactics. You take after your masters, such as PZ Myers, quite well. Congratulations.

Rick: Are you aiming to beat out Havok for most irrelevant commenter of the year? Oh Rick, I could never be as irrelevant as you are - we atheists would have too pool our resources, and even then we'd still end up being more relevant than you are.

You also take out the awards for most ridiculous claims, greatest arrogance, most consistent projection, best motivated reasoning, amongst others.

R:Wow, you can post a link. But no actual relevant quotes or points? How dissappointing.

"(Short form -- he found a lot more than he thought he had, because the techniques he had available in 1955 were primitive, and he was careful about his claims. Nonetheless, within one week in a single room he had managed to generate most of the building blocks of life as we know it (which, it is worth noting, is a much *smaller* set than the set of building blocks that might sustain life). When you compare that to the billions of years over vast quantities of space on the surface of the Earth that time has given us, it seems hardly unlikely at all (most probable, I believe would be your term) that a system such as the one that became life on this planet could have emerged purely through the interaction of natural forces, without any guiding intelligence."

Rick, we all know you have a reading disability. Hence I quoted you specifiqually the part of imnotandrei comment summarizeing the provided link.

Thank you, Anonymous. Also, Rick, I responded to you in the other thread where you posted exactly the same response. If you wish to keep having a discussion, try posting in one place, so you don't need to be rebutted twice? ;)

To make it easy:http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/pastor-sentenced-to-2-years-in-prison.html?showComment=1338476860728#c6737114722122121068

Seeing as PZ Myers refuses to offer his opinion on whether or not bestiality should be legalized, what is your opinion on the legalization of this activity?

You noted, Reynold, "Atheists are at least honest enough to admit that morals can change over time...we as a society are constantly trying to improve things."

It seems that the US Military (or at least president Obama who signed the NDAA into law) see bestiality as acceptable now. Some may believe bestiality can be a valid option to "improve things" for lonely soldiers.

The relevant section of the NDAA which seems to have inspired these wacky claims of your Rick, seems to be the repeal of homosexual sex and sodomy.Here's the text of the act which the 2012 NDAA repeals:“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

To hype a repeal of that as some kind of direct approval of bestiality is ridiculous!It is simply addressing the fact that oral and anal sex between heterosexual and homosexual couples is not an offence - the horror of treating people with dignity!

Just more of the same from you though Rick - you do embrace the ridiculous :-)

Rick, the closeted zoophile:Seeing as PZ Myers refuses to offer his opinion on whether or not bestiality should be legalized, what is your opinion on the legalization of this activity?If it ain't already covered by existing animal cruelty laws, it should be.

WardenYou noted, Reynold, "Atheists are at least honest enough to admit that morals can change over time...we as a society are constantly trying to improve things."Are you implying Rick, that the legalization of bestiality would be an improvement?

Well, looks like my new name for you just may fit after all.

As Havok has said: To hype a repeal of that as some kind of direct approval of bestiality is ridiculous!

Havok has shot you down and he's right about you: You do embrace the ridiculous.

Now about you, Warden:

Are you effed in the head? Are you obsessed? What is wrong with you? Hasn't Myers message been strong enough?

You are still trying to pin this shit on him, and now on me? Never mind that Myers has slagged you to hell on his last comment on this; You are still trying to find some way to pin this, however loosely and without basis, on him.

Warren: Either you are a complete propagandist who's desperate to sling mud that will actually stick to people, or you are totally effed in the head. If the latter is the case: get help. You really need it.

Rick: If you notice, Vilenkin does not seem to have a problem with the article or its title, written January 24, 2012:I suspect Vilenkin is referring to your characterisation of his views, which form a very small part of the blog post.

Rick: The article notes how Vilenkin's math eliminates eternal universe theories: eternal inflation, Eternal cycles, the eternal egg...Yet the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is classical, and would need to be quantised in order to correctly derive the conclusion you want.

Rick: Also, theories postulating multiverses are just that, theories not based on any empirical evidence.This is utter tripe Rick. Multiverse theories of various sorts result from extrapolations from existing physics. They're still speculative, sure, but to claim they're not grounded in reality at all, as you seem to be implying, is ridiculous.

Rick: Though there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for multiverse theories, atheists scientists had to come up with some explanation for the fine-tuned universe.Utter rubbish. Multiverse theories came about, not as an attempt to avoid concluding Christianity is true, but due to attempts to actually understand reality.For instance, models of eternal inflation drop out of inflationary big bang cosmology.

Rick: An infinite number of universes out there somewhere would help to offer a chance that our universe 'just happened'More garbage.The fine tuning argument is terrible, whether you are claiming a multiverse or not.For the fine tuning argument to work, you would need to have independant evidence of the fine tuner and/or arguments and evidence as to why this exact set of constants were chosen over another. Theism offers no answers to these questions, it just punts to mystery.

Of course, if you were to offer some kind of detailed explanation as to why your God picked this exact universe and not a different one, then you might have a point. As it is, you have nothing but a gap in knowledge and an argument from ignorance.

When I asked you the following question ...what is your opinion on the legalization of this activity?

You answered the following:

If it ain't already covered by existing animal cruelty laws, it should be.

This leaves me 2 questions:

1. If the animal is not harmed, why would it necessarily be a case of animal cruelty for atheists?

2. You seem to be opposed to PZ Myers on this question. It seems he agrees with point #1, as far as I can surmise.

IPZ Myers' states in the above article, "I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions..." (reference 9)

- Would that perhaps be a case where an animal noticeably is enjoying the bestiality, Reynold? Would the sheep be smiling or bleating with delight? Myers is apparently unwilling to answer my second email and clarify the questions he did not answer. I don't see any other case where Myers would not object.

Reynold, Who should we consider correct, you or PZ Myers?

I'm attempting to find the bottom line atheist answer on this subject and it seems that Myers, not you, is offering the more objective one.

It seems that Imnotandrei agrees with Myers' position that bestiality is not a problem if the animal enjoys it, though Imnotandrei, like Myers, does not want to plainly state it should be legal. The Russian anonymous has yet to offer his opinion on this subject.

When I asked you the following question ...what is your opinion on the legalization of this activity?

You answered the following:

If it ain't already covered by existing animal cruelty laws, it should be.

This leaves me 2 questions:And here we go!

1. If the animal is not harmed, why would it necessarily be a case of animal cruelty for atheists?The organisms of this planet aren't built for cross-species attempts at reproduction, physically, or emotionally. That should be it for you, but I know it won't be.

Warden2. You seem to be opposed to PZ Myers on this question. It seems he agrees with point #1, as far as I can surmise.I don't really trust your "surmises", pal.

Warden- Would that perhaps be a case where an animal noticeably is enjoying the bestiality, Reynold?If you're so desperate to find out, I suggest that you go do it.

Would the sheep be smiling or bleating with delight?See above.

Myers is apparently unwilling to answer my second email and clarify the questions he did not answer. I don't see any other case where Myers would not object.You are unbelievable. I don't blame him for not answering your second email. You're starting to come across as one who is genuinely fucked in the head.

No matter what is said, you will find a way to twist it. You are a true apologist.

Or, as I'm starting to suspect after reading stuff like Would the sheep be smiling or bleating with delight?, and If PZ Myers' opinion is true, that morality is based on feelings of empathy, then he should be morally justified to go into a field and sodomize a lonely sheep if he wants to., that maybe you are a true closeted zoophile.

Because I can't even see a propagandist clinging onto this with the tenacity you are. Why are you so obsessed with this?

Are you so desperate to try to make atheists look like we have no reason to oppose bestiality as part of some huge ad-hom attack (never mind that you pretend to be against that!) or are you truly a closeted zoophile?

WardenI'm attempting to find the bottom line atheist answer on this subject and it seems that Myers, not you, is offering the more objective one.So that means what I've said here does not count?

As imnotandrei said:Which is completely wrong. There's no "bottom line" atheist. They don't have a scripture, a dogma, an "Atheist Way".There is no "bottom line" atheist answer. All each of us can do is give our individual reasons.

Which, as we've seen, you'll unilaterally reject all in an effort to try to make it look like that atheists have no reason to oppose bestiality (or whatever other bullshit you'll come up with next).

It seems that without biblegod to tell you how to act, as is evidenced by the fact that you people keep whining about how atheists have no "objective" morality (ie. god making the rules) you people have nothing stopping you from committing any of the acts that you people complain about.

No reason that any atheist can give (empathy, pain and suffering, consequences, good of society, etc) will ever be good enough for you people. Unless god tells you, it's not good enough. And if god tells people to kill, well, William Lane Craig shows how you people feel about that!

I've said before and I'll say it again: In the end, that exposes the theists' lack of morality, not the atheists!

>Are you so desperate to try to make atheists look like we have no reason to oppose bestiality

- Reynold, I'm simply pointing out a quote by Myers and attempting to clarify his views - and yours as well. But for some reason both of you refuse to answer very simple questions.

As referenced in the blog post by PZ Myers' (that you, Reynold, first brought to my attention) - PZ Myers is quoted as saying, "I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions..." (reference 9)

If "Nothing must be held sacred" with regard to morality, then why is it apparently so difficult to answer simple questions, Reynold?

1. In your opinion, under what "specific conditions" could Myers possibly believe that bestiality is not objectionable?

2. Do you believe, Reynold, that bestiality should be legal or not?

Instead of repetitively accusing me of focusing on this issue, why don't you (and Myers) just answer my simple questions so we can move on and get to the heart of the underlying philosophical questions?

These types of questions only point to deeper ones. Why do you refuse to answer them?

Instead of repetitively accusing me of focusing on this issue, why don't you (and Myers) just answer my simple questions so we can move on and get to the heart of the underlying philosophical questions?

Because you do focus on this issue, to the exclusion of almost everything else. In every thread since you sent the letter (and several before), you've essentially required everyone discussing this with you to answer your questions before they engage with you on other issues -- either by flat-out refusing to discuss with them, and asking them the questions, or repeatedly pestering them with the questions afterwards.

Why anyone's guess as to what PZ Myers meant by a specific phrase is important to discussion of free speech in Wisconsin, I have no idea.

These types of questions only point to deeper ones. Why do you refuse to answer them?

Then why don't you ask your "deeper questions", and see if people will answer them, instead of using what looks like transparent quote-mine bait as a gatekeeper?

>There's no "bottom line" atheist. They don't have a scripture, a dogma, an "Atheist Way". So you're looking for a phantom.

- The reactions of PZ Myers and Reynold speak otherwise. For some reason they continuously refuse to answer my simple questions about morality. If there were no objective basis for morality and no bottom line truth, why do you believe they would go to such lengths to avoid answering simple questions that supposedly have no serious bearing for atheists? :-)

Actions speak louder than words.

Anonymous still has not answered my questions and you were reluctant yourself. :-)

I fail to see how "two people don't want to answer pestering questions" turns into "There is a 'bottom line' atheist'".

If there were no objective basis for morality and no bottom line truth, why do you believe they would go to such lengths to avoid answering simple questions that supposedly have no serious bearing for atheists? :-)

Because they have no serious bearing for atheists, and they look like quote-mine trap material, perhaps? And I notice you've moved the goalpost from "bottom line" atheists to "bottom line" truth.

Actions speak louder than words.

And your actions speak to someone obsessed with bestiality. What conclusion shall we draw from this? Certainly, one less tenuous than "Two atheists don't answer my questions, therefore all atheists are the same at the core."

So, let's see your "deeper questions". Or answers on anything else. Or is all that's important to you getting people to answer your three questions, including 1 on which they have no particular reason to have an opinion?

Yes, really. You have asked these questions initially on the thread about Caminiti. It was completely off-topic, but still I answered you on May 31st at 7:28 pm. The same day you have asked the question on MAY 31st at 1:59 pm (you are unable to track the time of your own posts even). I have no idea how to post direct links to posts, so you will have to scroll down a little from your initial questions.

You do not have that much comments to loose track of them, Rick. You only prove once again that you have a reading disability

I'll note that in all of this: No apology has been tendered by Rick to Myers or his daughter. Instead, he keeps trying desperately to make his charges stick. A perfect example is his post here.

Like any apologist, trying to convince him that he's wrong is pretty much a futile endeavor. He'll latch onto anything that he can to keep his ad-hom attack in the game and distract from the fact that he made false charges against Myer's daughter, he is the one who twisted her words, and even a direct shot-back by Myers, and a direct post by his daughter is not enough to get Warden to back off.

It never will be. Ad-homs are just too useful a tool in the apologists arsenal.

Or maybe Warden's obsession with this topic indicates that he really is a zoophile closet-case...

>I'll note that in all of this: No apology has been tendered by Rick to Myers or his daughter.

>Are you so desperate to try to make atheists look like we have no reason to oppose bestiality as part of some huge ad-hom attack

Reynold, I asked Myers and his daughter three simple questions. Instead of answering them, Myers attacks me with personal insults (read - ad hom attacks). Asking questions is not an ad-hom attack, Reynold, but personal insults, like calling someone an idiot, are definitely ad-hom attacks. It's really quite astounding that you seem to actually believe that I am the one who is supposed to apologize. I'm concerned about your mental health, Reynold.

Take a deep breath, Reynold, and consider that maybe you should apologize to me for refusing to answer my simple questions and repeating the same hackneyed illogical lines over and over again at my blog.

Which they had no reason to answer; indeed, they had every reason to suspect were quote-mine bait, given both their previous experience with Christian apologists and the way you treat quotes here on your blog.

Indeed, the very reason you were *asking* the questions, as now partially revealed, makes their answering them even less valid -- because you weren't asking them, you were trying to get an answer from the Official Atheist Heirarchy or somesuch -- a "bottom-line" atheist.

like calling someone an idiot, are definitely ad-hom attacks

Actually, you are (unsurprisingly) failing to understand the meaning of the fallacy ad hominem. Of course, it's possible that all you care about is that people are supposedly "nice" to one another (even though calling people depraved, sinful, etc. is of course permitted, while calling them an idiot is, apparently, not.) But the ad hominem fallacy is "X is an idiot, therefore, if X says Y, Y is not true." PZ didn't do that. He insulted you on the side, but did not dismiss your arguments as a result of the ad hominem.

Now, *you* have resorted to the "You are of the same type of person as X, X said Y, Y is wrong, therefore you are wrong" argument. Which is perilously close. "Singer is a humanist, humanists say X is true, therefore humanists are wrong, therefore you are wrong about Y."

So, check the status of your own transparent architecture before you go complaining about someone else's.

refusing to answer my simple questions and repeating the same hackneyed illogical lines over and over again at my blog.

If you want to be "the blog where you have to render an opinion on the legality of bestiality to post", then go ahead. Just remember that you're the one who's been staking a claim to a right to other people's time, who never posted on your blog, by pestering them with questions.

imnotandrei has pretty much dealt with your lastest reply to me Warden.

I, unlike you, have nothing to apologize for. You are the one who's been quote-mining and accusing others of supporting bestiality. When they outright tell you that they don't, you still try to find some way to pin it on them.

You say that I repeat the "same hackneyed illogical lines over and over again"? Back that charge up. From what I gather, it's you who has the hard time reading what others say.

Remember?You completely miss the point of one of my posts, even when I had quoted it for you. You totally missed the part that I had quoted and jump onto a totally irrelevent part.

>You are the one who's been quote-mining and accusing others of supporting bestiality.

Hmmm. You are going beyond the point of ridiculousness, Reynold. Quote mining is defined as taking someone’s quote out of context and twisting the meaning. Firstly, it’s very difficult to understand the contextual meaning of a quote when people absolutely refuse to clarify what they mean. Secondly, asking people to clarify meaning is not the same as twisting meaning.

Take this quote by PZ Myers, for example, “I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions” - In what manner may it be considered “quote mining” to ask for clarity on this point, Reynold? And how can I be twisting the meaning when all I am asking for is clarity on its meaning?

If, as PZ states, there are “specific conditions” in which he finds bestiality non-objectionable, how is it quote mining to send an email to PZ and ask what those specific conditions are?

And if PZ refuses to answer, how is it quote mining to ask other atheists how they might possibly interpret this point when PZ refuses to clarify it?

I believe you have a true misunderstanding of the term quote mining, Reynold. I also believe you do not know what an accusation is, based on your comments.

WardenIf, as PZ states, there are “specific conditions” in which he finds bestiality non-objectionable, how is it quote mining to send an email to PZ and ask what those specific conditions are?

And if PZ refuses to answer, how is it quote mining to ask other atheists how they might possibly interpret this point when PZ refuses to clarify it?

I believe you have a true misunderstanding of the term quote mining, Reynold. I also believe you do not know what an accusation is, based on your comments.Those are not the quote-mining. The quote-mining is when you ignored what Myer's daughter said about her saying "I do not support bestiality" while quoting stuff that she said before that, while leaving that statement out.

Those details are covered in the links in my reply to you that you are "replying" to.

Firstly, it’s very difficult to understand the contextual meaning of a quote when people absolutely refuse to clarify what they mean.

Actually, if a quote is in context, then you can be just confused. ;)

Secondly, asking people to clarify meaning is not the same as twisting meaning.

When you repeatedly fail to understand, and ask again and again, it creates (in some people) the suspicion that you're looking for an answer you can twist. When you ask ridiculous questions -- like asking me to speculate on what PZ Myers is thinking, when I have no special reason to understand or care -- it adds to that impression. Given that you've recently shown a willingness to omit context to create a false impression (a.k.a. quote mining), it's a not unreasonable assumption.

And how can I be twisting the meaning when all I am asking for is clarity on its meaning?

Because you're asking other people to give answers for him. Our answers to that question are irrelevant, yet it seems vitally important that you get them. Why?

If, as PZ states, there are “specific conditions” in which he finds bestiality non-objectionable, how is it quote mining to send an email to PZ and ask what those specific conditions are?

It's not. That's hectoring, an entirely different problem.

And if PZ refuses to answer, how is it quote mining to ask other atheists how they might possibly interpret this point when PZ refuses to clarify it?

Because there's no reason atheists should be expected to interpret *his* statements for *you*. Atheists are not, as I've repeatedly stated (and you've studiously ignored responding to) a unified bloc -- so my speculation on what PZ Myers means is as useful as my speculation as to why you're asking all these questions, or Reynold's, that you're a closet zoophile and this is how you're getting your jollies.

So, tell me, Rick, why is it a flip-flop when an atheist clarifies a position, while when you edit your own posts in the middle of arguments without telling people you're doing so, it's "clarification"?

It's funny how all the atheists who comment at my blog seem to imply the above sentence is perfectly normal, yet no one dares attempt to interpret it.

Heh. Because we presume not to speak for other people? I could offer a possibility -- but if you then claim that it's true, you will be a liar, sir, and a misrepresenter of fact, and a quote-miner (likely), and a scoundrel.

Under certain circumstances, PZ Myers might not object -- and therefore might not criminalize the behavior -- but would not support it in any way.

I think, for example, sticking 24-inch rims under your car is stupid, ugly, and inane -- but unless you render the car unsafe to drive by doing so, I don't think it should be illegal. So I won't object if other people do it, under certain circumstances, but I don't support it.

Got it? Now remember, Rick, that's my guess as to what PZ might mean -- if you try and present it as "what PZ means" or "what atheists mean", then you're lying. Pure and simple.

Rick: I did not see that quote by Skatje Myers immediately, but when I did see it I acknowledged it as a flip-flop of opinion.As I pointed out to you when you made this accusation Rick, it was not a flip-flop at all.I gave you an example of smoking, but you failed to address it.

This is not the first time you've accused someone of flip-flopping as a way to avoid addressing their actual arguments - you still owe me an apology for that, by the way ;-)

Warden the liarIf "Nothing must be held sacred" with regard to morality, then why is it apparently so difficult to answer simple questions, Reynold?Because no matter how we answer, or how many times we answer you either twist what we say anyway, or outright ignore the answer (my last comment gave an example of that behaviour from you)

(I dealt with it as the links in my last post here show, but I'm repeating this to show how you twisted her words here)WardenNo, Reynold, try to focus and be specific. I specifically claimed that Myers' daughter supports the legalization of bestiality, as per her own quote:"I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals. You might ask, why even bother arguing for this position if it really doesn't actually matter to me."You distorted what she said: she outright said that she doesn't support it being legal.

Warden1. In your opinion, under what "specific conditions" could Myers possibly believe that bestiality is not objectionable?How should I know what he thinks? I told you once before, I don't know.

Warden2. Do you believe, Reynold, that bestiality should be legal or not?What the hell's wrong with you? I already answered that question. You even quoted me as I point out here!

MeIf it ain't already covered by existing animal cruelty laws, it should be.

Of course, you tried to use that to just ask other useless questions, but at least you admitted that I answered.

Now you're acting like I've not answered your ORIGINAL question at all?

Huh?

Are you hoping to deceive any newcomers to this blog or something? Because other than outright lack of reading comprehension and really bad memory on your part, I can't think of any other reason that you'd be acting like this.

>Because no matter how we answer, or how many times we answer you either twist what we say anyway, or outright ignore the answer (my last comment gave an example of that behaviour from you)

- You don't have to answer my simple questions, Reynold, and neither does PZ Myers.

It's now all here on record. The crickets are chirping quietly in the background.

I'm not twisting anyone's words, Reynold. PZ Myers' own sentences and words seem to be twisted enough as they are. But what's more endemic of the situation is the fact that there is no evidence of a desire for clarity or truth in the aftermath of PZ's confusing statements by any of his atheist fans.

All of PZ's comrades all seem to be quite content not to know specifics and not to explore specifics and let sick sleeping dogs lie sick.

What do you expect, Reynold? If the foundation is twisted and illogical, the house itself and its inhabitants will be any different?

Funny -- it sure looks like he answered some of your questions in the post above. Of course, you might have moved the goalposts as to which questions you wanted answered, but that's not his fault.

All of PZ's comrades all seem to be quite content not to know specifics and not to explore specifics and let sick sleeping dogs lie sick.

So, I presume you've written to that pastor in Madison and asked him questions -- or are you content to let that particular sick, imprisoned sleeping dog stay that way?

It cuts both ways, Rick. Cope.

What do you expect, Reynold? If the foundation is twisted and illogical, the house itself and its inhabitants will be any different?

And here we get to the reason -- you want people to answer so you can go "Look! This is sick (to me) therefore everything they do is wrong!" While going on with your own No True Scotsman "If a Christian does something wrong, they're not a True Biblical Christian" nonsense.

As expected -- you were trying to get answers here to set up a giant ad hominem fallacy.

Still, from someone who believes that genocide is moral if God tells you to do it, along with (apparently) beating two-month-olds with wooden rods, I suppose a little logical fallacy's a small deal.

Oh dear me Rick, it looks like you've completely lost control on your own blog. Your questions have been answered, but apparently not in the way you wanted, and so you've ignored the responses.

You're a liar and worse. How PZ described you wasn't an ad hominem, as imnotandrei pointed out - he was accurately characterising you (though I don't think he went far enough).You are dishonest, unrepentant, idiotic, and you behave like a complete arsehole. You show no ability to learn from your errors. You accuse others of the exact behaviour you yourself display over and over again. You simply cannot countenance your beliefs being mistaken, causing you to go to absurd lengths in order to try to validate them.It's very entertaining and rather sad at the same time.

>You distorted what she said: she outright said that she doesn't support it being legal.

You are quite mistaken, Reynold, and it is becoming clear that attempting a rational dialogue with you is becoming quite fruitless.

It is apparent that there is no desire for clarity on your part and your desire to embrace ambiguous answers is perhaps a solace to the conscience for what appear to be acts objectionable to the human conscience.

In her first quote, as I posted it, she claimed she does support it being legal:

Her initial opinion: “I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals."

According to the meaning of these specific words and grammatical syntax, Reynold, Myers' daughter is stating that she supports legalized bestiality. If you are in such a state of denial that you cannot acknowledge this, there is no point to attempt to continue a dialogue with you.

Later, she flip-flops, i.e., she changes her opinion. She states "I do not support bestiality."

Havok has recently stated he does not believe this is a flip-flop. And Havok has already been shown to be unable to carry on a rational and civilized dialogue. It seems that same may be true for you, Reynold. Calling me a "liar" does not change the meaning of words in the English language. Nor does it change the meaning of grammatical syntax.

You have still not admitted that bestiality does not necessarily involve pain and animal cruelty and therefore your answer that bestiality only relates to animal cruelty laws is inadequate. Like PZ Myers, You refuse to simply take a stand a state plainly whether or not it should be legal. You also refuse to rationally discuss the specifics of this question with regard to morality.

As far as PZ Myers 'non-objectional' bestiality is concerned, I have not not been asking you to guess what he thinks. I have simply asked, on a completely objective basis, what possible forms of bestiality do you believe he might be referring to, that could be morally justifiable for an atheist. I was attempting to help you deal with specifics, Reynold. But both you and PZ, and apparently all the recent atheist commenters at this post, have no interest in fleshing out the specifics of their beliefs and the implications of their beliefs.

Rather than flesh out uncomfortable specifics, it perhaps seems more comforting to the atheist conscience to make ad-hom non-sequitur attacks, such as "You are a liar." No surprises here.

Rick: Havok has recently stated he does not believe this is a flip-flop.Actually, I demonstrated that this was not a flip-flop. But as usual you ignored it since the results didn't fit with your internal narrative.

Rick: And Havok has already been shown to be unable to carry on a rational and civilized dialogue.Coming from an imbecile like you Rick, that's more of a compliment than anything else :-)

How in the hell are my answers "ambiguous"? The others are right...your questions have been answered, you don't like the answers so you either pretend you didn't see the answers, or you say that they're "ambiguous" or you pretend that they haven't been answered at all.

Yeah, the record is public. Too bad for you as you can tell from the other posters pointing your tendencies out here.

WardenBut both you and PZ, and apparently all the recent atheist commenters at this post, have no interest in fleshing out the specifics of their beliefs and the implications of their beliefs.I've given reasons according to biology itself, Rick. Yet you say that? That is exactly what I have done. I give links to previous answers I gave to try to help you and this is how you act?

And you say that I have no interest in dialogue?

We'll let the public decide. I can see how the other posters here are going to vote...

Well, reasons according to biology and other reasons...like empathy, lack of informed consent, and that's not how we evolved (ok, back to biology, etc)....

But anyway, look at this:Warden the liarAccording to the meaning of these specific words and grammatical syntax, Reynold, Myers' daughter is stating that she supports legalized bestiality. If you are in such a state of denial that you cannot acknowledge this, there is no point to attempt to continue a dialogue with you.How in hell can “I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals."possibly be twisted to mean "she does support legalized bestiality"?

And I'm the one in denial?

WardenLater, she flip-flops, i.e., she changes her opinion. She states "I do not support bestiality."She never said that she supported it in the first place, Rick. That quote you used...ugh.

Good grief...

Prove that she's "flip-flopped". You even said that it was because her dad made her.Prove that as well.

You on the other hand look like you're trying to find reasons to justify bestiality, especially when you say things likeYou have still not admitted that bestiality does not necessarily involve pain and animal cruelty and therefore your answer that bestiality only relates to animal cruelty laws is inadequate.For closet-cases like you maybe...

Why do I call you that? Simple. For every reason given by us atheists to say that bestiality is wrong, you reject.

It looks more and more like the only reason that you'll accept is because biblegod forbids it.

Think though: Why would biblegod forbid bestiality if not or the reasons that have already been given?

You may also want to think about the fact that you're giving the impression that if it wasn't for your gods' commands, YOU would find no reason to oppose bestiality.

Look at the things you've been writing for crying out loud:- Would that perhaps be a case where an animal noticeably is enjoying the bestiality, Reynold?

Would the sheep be smiling or bleating with delight?

For us normal people there's the things about biology and informed consent, etc. etc. which you'll dismiss again...

Warden the liarLike PZ Myers, You refuse to simply take a stand a state plainly whether or not it should be legal.I said that if animal cruelty laws don't cover it, they should.

How's that "refusing to take a stand"?

You say that the animals isn't always necessarily hurt by it..so what? It's still not biologically logical to do it, and the animals can't exactly give informed consent now, can they? There is also the whole "different species and genera" thing going on here which you don't seem to care about...

Anyway, you use that (paraphrasing here): "so it doesn't always hurt the animals so it's can't count as cruelty" thing to then turn around and say that I refuse to answer the question about it's legality in the first place?

Just because you think that my answer is not good enough does NOT mean that I did NOT answer it.

Reynold:How in hell can “I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals." possibly be twisted to mean "she does support legalized bestiality"?

Well, to be honest, I also got the impression that she does support the legalization of bestiality (though, my impression is likely distorted because I got the information from Rick). She does seem to support the legalization of bestiality because the only reason people oppose to it (according to her) is because they find it "icky". Even if she herself finds it "icky", she still supports the legalization of bestiality out of principle. The same way as many support homosexuals even if they are uncomfortable with the idea itself of two men getting together for romantic purposes.

Hey, Rick, going to answer anyone else, or are you only trying to beat your subject into the ground?

"As far as PZ Myers 'non-objectional' bestiality is concerned, I have not not been asking you to guess what he thinks"

You have been doing exactly that:

"1. In your opinion, under what "specific conditions" could Myers possibly believe that bestiality is not objectionable?"

According to the meaning of these specific words and grammatical syntax, you want someone to tell us what Myers could possibly believe -- i.e., what Myers could and does think.

If you wanted to know what people might think was "morally justifiable for an atheist", you could ask: "Do you consider bestiality is morally justifiable, and if so, why?"

See? No need to even *mention* Myers, let alone ask about what people think he might believe.

But both you and PZ, and apparently all the recent atheist commenters at this post, have no interest in fleshing out the specifics of their beliefs and the implications of their beliefs.

Well, my own beliefs are my own private issue, so this may be *technically* correct -- I do notice that you've decided to ignore people who *do* answer you, rather than investigate further, which appears to undercut your claim that you want dialogue.

The simplest approach to helping you understand the English language may be to offer some similar sentences and see if you can figure out the meaning.

What does the following sentence mean, Reynold?

I don't go to English class because I love to study grammar.

According to your interpretation, does the above sentence mean that the person does or does not go to English class?

Let me give you clue. Part of the sentence is sarcastic.

If you interpret the sentence literally, without sarcasm, it is a logical self-contradiction. If you interpret it as it is meant to be interpreted, with sarcasm, it means the student does in fact go to English class but does not like studying grammar.

I would have guessed that the Russian would have missed this (Mr. Anonymous). But what country are you from, Reynold, that you cannot understand the common use of sarcasm in the English language?

In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in "What a fine musician you turned out to be!" or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, "You couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two assistants." The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal intonation ...[9]

Hostile, critical comments may be expressed in an ironic way, such as saying "don't work too hard" to a lazy worker. The use of irony introduces an element of humour which may make the criticism seem more polite and less aggressive. Sarcasm can frequently be unnoticed in print form, oftentimes requiring the intonation or tone of voice to indicate the quip.[citation needed]

Understanding

Understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's intentions. This sophisticated understanding can be lacking in some people with certain forms of brain damage, dementia and autism, (although not always)[10] and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus.[11][12]

Cultural perspectives on sarcasm vary widely with more than a few cultures and linguistic groups finding it offensive to varying degrees. Thomas Carlyle despised it: "Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it".[13] Fyodor Dostoyevsky, on the other hand, recognized in it a cry of pain: Sarcasm, he said, was "usually the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded."[14] RFC 1855, a collection of guidelines for Internet communications, even includes a warning to be especially careful with it as it "may not travel well".

Ok, time for a reading comprehension lesson. Let us take Havok s example with smoking.

1. I do not support smoking since it is harmful for one s health

2. I support the right of other people to choose to smoke, provided that they know about the consequences.

See any contradictions in the statements above? Is there any flip-flop between supporting the freedom of others to make a choice and between being generally against that choice? Same thing with Myers daughter

Firstly, It's notable that you have quoted two statements together, one somewhat of a personal opinion and the other a clear statement on the legalization of an act.

Can you show me where PZ or his daughter have provided somewhat clearer examples, as I've asked for? No, because they have not.

Instead of acknowledging this, you and Reynold humorously deny the meaning of the English language:

“I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals."

Skatje Myers two quotes can be summarized as follows:

1. I support bestiality being legal.

2. I do not support bestiality.

Despite your quote, Anonymous, both you and Reyold still deny that Skatje has stated in a sarcastic tone that she supports the legalization of bestiality. Yes, reading comprehension is important.

Another specific question PZ refuses to answer is, what are the "specific conditions" in which bestiality is not objectionable. And what does not objectionable mean? Does that mean he believes it should be legal?

It seems quite evident that there is no desire for clarity whatsoever. That's fine. But it's a losing battle, Anonymous, to pretend that these people are attempting to be clear and lucid, when they are not. :-)

I have repeatedly answered Rick's questions, but he either ignores them (sometimes pretending that he can't read them properly because I use Italics instead of quotation marks), dismisses my replies as not good enough, then goes on to claim that I've never answered him.

See this where Warden had said:Like PZ Myers, You refuse to simply take a stand a state plainly whether or not it should be legal.I said that if animal cruelty laws don't cover it, they should.

How's that "refusing to take a stand"?

WardenDespite your quote, Anonymous, both you and Reyold still deny that Skatje has stated in a sarcastic tone that she supports the legalization of bestiality. Yes, reading comprehension is important.Guess what, Rick? If she said it sarcastically that means that she does NOT support it! I asked you once long ago for a quote where she said that she supported it.

Sarcasm does NOT count as support.

Derp....derp...derp.

So now you're trying to give sarcasm lessons to me trying to show that "yes, she did say it but she said it sarcastically".

So what? I'll say it again...sarcasm is not support.

Let me guess: Because I did not specify from the onset that the quote had to be non-sarcastic when I asked for a quote where Skatjie said that she supported bestiality, Rick will claim that he won the argument, even though as I've already said: Sarcasm does NOT mean support?

Do tell what is the point of the discussion, Rick? Do you really think that if some atheist supports the idea of dicriminilazing bestiality that makes atheism itself immoral? Then you made a mistake. Why are you so obsessed with bestiality? Are you trying to find any possible excuse, no matter how small to thrust an ad hominem at Myers? Why do you care so much about him?

Your example "I don't go to English class because I love to study grammar." works perfectly well without any sarcasm as imnotandrei has pointed out. The person in question might not want to go to English class because the level of teaching there is inadequate or the English class might concentrate on pronounciation instead of grammar. There is no contradiction in that statement.

And yes! There are certain conditions (the fullfilment of which are almost impossible) when bestiality can be moral if the participants know about the consequences of their action and they have both given their consent. However, since it is impossible to check if the animal has trully given their consent and are aware of the consequences, bestiality should be illegal since it is virtually indistinguishable from abuse.

I am tired of repeating myself, but Rick s thick skull will not register any respopnses unless they are repeated a dozen of times at least

Anonymous: And yes! There are certain conditions (the fullfilment of which are almost impossible) when bestiality can be moral if the participants know about the consequences of their action and they have both given their consent.Does Kirk's sleeping with the green animal women in the original Trek series count? :-)

Anonymous: I am tired of repeating myself, but Rick s thick skull will not register any respopnses unless they are repeated a dozen of times at leastActually, I don't think Rick's able to register a response unless it is the response he expects. So giving him a rational, non-Goddy reason as to why bestiality could be legal and yet in practice illegal, which we all seem to have provided, does not compute - for Rick, there can be no non-Goddy reason, and so he plunges onward uncomprehendingly.

- It seems more like you re-frame my questions in order to avoid addressing difficult underlying issues.

>I said that if animal cruelty laws don't cover it, they should.

- You are offering information I did not ask for. I did not ask you if bestiality should be considered cruel to animals. I simply asked if the behavior in general should be legal.

Consider bestiality as a set. Animal cruelty is not a necessary component of bestiality, but may be considered a subset. Other atheists on this post have already acknowledged this distinction.

It seems that the only reason you would consider bestiality immoral is if animals were harmed. Can you answer a simple question, Reynold:

If there is no harm to animals and animals seem to be enjoying the bestiality, should it still be considered immoral or illegal behavior by people who engage in this in your opinion? And the most important question is "Why?"

Many atheists here ask why I want to ask such a question. It's quite simple. It's is overwhelmingly obvious that atheists such as PZ Myers are confident as they vituperate, "Nothing must be held sacred." But, the fact is, the same atheists cannot seem to explain why they avoid answering simple questions objectively about their moral beliefs.

This type of behavior implies that human exceptionalism is a valid moral concept. But atheists such as Myers and Reynold who chaff at these questions have not offered one iota of support for human exceptionalism.

>Guess what, Rick? If she said it sarcastically that means that she does NOT support it!

- Instead of acknowledging your mistaken interpretation of Skatje Myers quotes on the legalization of bestiality, and apologizing for saying that I "twist" Skatje Myers words, you now state (after your interpretation was disproved) that the particular comment is irrelevant because sarcasm was used. That's a bit hypocritical, Reynold.

And I was wondering who made you the judge as to when people 'mean what they say' and when they don't, based on the use of sarcasm. That's a pretty inventive excuse.

According to your view, any use of sarcasm or irony nullifies all of the implied meaning. I suppose that would nullify many of the atheist comments at my blog. I'll make a note of this for future reference, Reynold.

Hi, Rick! I see you're still ignoring questions and undercutting your own moral authority to demand answers from others.

If there is no harm to animals and animals seem to be enjoying the bestiality, should it still be considered immoral or illegal behavior by people who engage in this in your opinion?

I find it amusing that you seem to consider this a "simple" question, given that it includes 3 conditions, a clause containing two different things to consider, and asks the person being asked to opine on the behalf of others.

But, the fact is, the same atheists cannot seem to explain why they avoid answering simple questions objectively about their moral beliefs.

And you know what? Someone actually interested in the underlying issues would try *rephrasing* the question, if they're having trouble getting useful answers for their purposes. The fact that you consider answers to your *precise* questions as far more important than having a discussion on the issues you allegedly want to get to rather undercuts confidence that that's what you really want.

This type of behavior implies that human exceptionalism is a valid moral concept.

Then why don't you ask *that*, instead of hairsplitting "No, you didn't answer my exact question on a sensitive and complicated subject?"

Because what your repeated insistence on answering *exactly* your question in a "simple" fashion implies is that you're trying to get an answer you can quote-mine or otherwise misrepresent.

R:If there is no harm to animals and animals seem to be enjoying the bestiality, should it still be considered immoral or illegal behavior by people who engage in this in your opinion? And the most important question is "Why?"

Rick, do get help if you cannot think of any reason why bestiality is wrong besides some vague reference in your moldy book.

But it's a losing battle, Anonymous, to pretend that these people are attempting to be clear and lucid, when they are not. :-)

Apparently, it's a losing battle to try and be clear and lucid to you, since if one tries to answer your questions, all you get is ignored. ;)

(Which reminds me -- you gave your lovely block of dictionary definition of sarcasm, while missing the point that the sentence "I don't go to English class because I love to study grammar." works perfectly in context without any sarcasm whatsoever.

Now, as you'd know if you actually bothered to *read* and *think about* my replies, I think that the statement implies support for legalization -- but, of course, if people were required to state, on the first time, exactly how they felt on every issue, you'd be a liar many times over, as I don't know how many times you've gone "that's just a summary" or "That's not precise" and edited your words. Try extending others the same courtesy.

Can you show me where PZ or his daughter have provided somewhat clearer examples, as I've asked for? No, because they have not.

And why should they? You frequently drop comment threads on your own blog -- where people are responding directly to things you've said -- let alone choose not to respond to questions emailed out of the blue.

What benefit do they get from answering your pestering? Especially since PZ feels you've gotten the answer you deserve, whether it's the answer you want.

Now, when are you going to respond on the Miller-Urey rebuttal that I made? You still haven't managed to be clear and lucid on that one. Why don't you want to be clear and lucid?

So, to clarify, you disagree with Reynold and Anonymous in that you believe Skatje Myers is in fact supporting the legalization of bestiality in that sentence?

I can see (since I don't have the full original context) how it could be read that way.

We can also get into the difference between legalization and decriminalization, but I suspect that's more detail than you want to cope with.

it is morally acceptable to have sex with animals if it seems the animal is not being harmed in any way?

No. "seems" is not sufficient grounding for moral judgment, to my lights. We grant people sufficient autonomy in many cases to be able to express their disapproval -- though even that can easily be compromised, as anyone looking at sexual harassment can easily tell -- and how much more difficult is it when dealing with another species?

(As a side note, what I consider moral and what I consider appropriate to have as legal are not equivalent sets. ;))

So -- going to answer any of the questions *I* asked *you* in my comment, or is this the "Rick gets to ask and doesn't have to answer" hour?

(In which case, you realize, you're undercutting your claim on any of PZ Myers' time -- if you don't have to answer questions asked of you on your own blog, in direct dialogue why should he have to answer you out of the blue because you feel like it?)

Apparently other atheists who comment here at this blog do not see the use of sarcasm as a necessary problem when it comes to the interpretation of meaning. No one else has brought this up as a problem. When Imnotandrei answered my question as to whether Skatje Myers' comment supported the legalization of bestiality, the sarcasm in the sentence was not even mentioned:

"I think that the statement implies support for legalization."

"I can see (since I don't have the full original context) how it could be read that way. "

1. Reynold, can you offer some kind of references to show why anyone should believe that the use of sarcasm nullifies a person's opinion?

2. Can you admit that you made a mistake in your interpretation of Skatje Myers' sentence because you apparently don't have a good handle on the English language?

3. I had asked what country you were born in. But you did not answer my question. I believe this may h

Why should Reynold bother answering any of your questions, when you never answer anyone else's?

And, furthermore, when will you get it through your head that your interlocutors (since, indeed, my own religious views are a private matter -- I call you out on bad logic) are not a unified bloc? Nor do we need to be, since we are engaged in a process of figuring out the world rather than claiming that all the answers were handed to us by an unverifiable text/external entity?

Oh, wait -- I forgot. Someone telling you you might need to apologize for something, indicating you might be wrong, is clearly far more important than actually explaining yourself, or communicating on any other issue.

Warden1. Reynold, can you offer some kind of references to show why anyone should believe that the use of sarcasm nullifies a person's opinion?You must really be desperate to pin this on her eh?

All I need to "offer" Warden, is the fact that she has repeatedly said that she is against it...something that you have repeatedly denied.

Here's a tip:You made the accusation. She has repeatedly shot it down. If you want to show that her being sarcastic somehow actually means that she still somehow supports bestiality even though she has repeatedly said that she is NOT, then the onus is on you to show it!

She's made her views plain, no matter how much you try to avoid it 1) her father got on her case2) reynold uses italics so's I couldn't see what she said

and other such shit.

Warden, this is what your reasoning looks like:"So she was sarcastic when she said it; you still have to prove that she doesn't agree with the view that she's being sarcastic about"!

Can't you see how stupid this is?

Give it up.

Warden2. Can you admit that you made a mistake in your interpretation of Skatje Myers' sentence because you apparently don't have a good handle on the English language?Show that first.

So far, it's only been you who's buggering up what she's trying to say Warden. Why am I being asked to apologize?

WardenAnd, to clarify your opinion on its morality, it is morally acceptable to have sex with animals if it seems the animal is not being harmed in any way?Yep, definitely a closet case.

I guess there is no chance in hell that you'll apologize to Myers and his daughter, is there?

What country I'm from? One where they teach both honesty and proper usage of the english language.

Also one where they tell you that if you're getting your ass kicked in an argument that there is a certain point where if you keep on going, you just look like a fool.

1. So, as shown, you have nothing whatsoever, no reference at all, to support your claim that whenever a person uses sarcasm then the answer does not count.

>Show that first.

- Reynold, this is really getting pathetic. How many examples do I need to show in order to demonstrate the manner in which this sentence should be interpreted? How many would be enough?

“I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals."

As I noted, the above sentence is either interpreted as support for legalized bestiality or it is an illogical self-contradiction. My example offered the same kind of format:

I don't go to English class because I love to study grammar.

Obviously, grammar is in fact studied in normal English classes and so so the implication is the same: It's either sarcastic or a local self-contradiction.

Another example would be this one:

I don't debate atheists simply because I enjoy engaging with people who by and large are in a state of denial.

Again, it's either sarcasm or a logical self-contradiciton.

What is the implication in all three cases? The implication is that there is a correct answer that is not stated.

Skatje Myers does not support legalized bestiality because she likes to hump animal but because she most likely believes people have the right to choose what they want to do.

The student does not go to English class because he loves grammar, but more likely because he needs the credits in order to get the desired degree.

I don't engage in debates with atheists because I enjoy engaging with people who are in a state of denial, there is more likely another reason. The evidence of illogical denial that atheists demonstrate is a witness to the truth and any open-minded atheists who happen to read these comments will see that there is objective truth and atheists by and large avoid it at all costs in order to try and hold onto their beliefs.

The sooner your face up to your denial and truth avoidance, Reynold, the better. It is really beginning to become painful to have to repeatedly point it out when it is so obvious.

open-mined atheists that atheism is false.

>Yep, definitely a closet case.

- I'm not sure what you mean by the above phrase, Reynold. So bestiality is morally acceptable to you if the animals are not harmed?

>What country I'm from? One where they teach both honesty and proper usage of the english language.

- If they teach the proper use of the English language in your country, were you perhaps missing a lot of the classes?

>I guess there is no chance in hell that you'll apologize to Myers and his daughter, is there?

- Reynold, when you can admit that you have misinterpreted Skatje Myers' sarcasm and admit that PZ Myers has refused to answer my simple, objective questions and instead has attacked me with insults, after you can admit these things to yourself, Reynold, which is very difficult for whatever reason, then you will understand that PZ and you who are the ones who should be apologizing to me. To continue in your state of denial only serves the purpose of exemplifying a person who is lost in more ways than one.

WardenThe sooner your face up to your denial and truth avoidance, Reynold, the better. It is really beginning to become painful to have to repeatedly point it out when it is so obvious.My denial? My "truth avoidance"? Yow. Weapons-grade projection Rick...I'm not the one who when confronted with definate statements by the people he's slandering STILL goes on with the same accusations over and over again.

I'm not the one who, when I FINALLY got you to read Skatjie's full statement went ahead and claimed that she's "flip-flopped" from a supposed previous view.

WardenThe quote you referenced seems to have been an attempt by Skatje Myers at damage control.an assertion you never proved.

Right after she says that she does not support bestiality, she predicts the behavior of people like you:Although that's what everyone's trying to make it look like I do. I guess squawking about "Those evil Darwinists will have all our children completely apathetic about bestiality! They won't even demand locking zoophiles up in prison!" doesn't sound as nice.

Warden quoting me and totally missing the mark:Yep, definitely a closet case.I'm not sure what you mean by the above phrase, Reynold. So bestiality is morally acceptable to you if the animals are not harmed?Warden, it's you who keep asserting that, not me!

That's why I was speculating that you are the closet case.

Reynold, when you can admit that you have misinterpreted Skatje Myers' sarcasm...Show it first.

When I read over her statement I don't see sarcasm I see someone who's trying to say that they oppose something.

**In a previous reply, I thought you were referring to her having once sarcastically say that she didn't oppose it and that you were trying to use that, but upon reading your commentary, it looks like you're trying to say that she was sarcastic in her post where she says that she does not support it!**

Thus, I did not bother to shoot down strawmen example of yours. Till now, anyway.

WardenWhat does the following sentence mean, Reynold?

I don't go to English class because I love to study grammar.

That analogy does not match this situation at all. Why? because Skatjie has said that she does not support it, and that she has no interest in doing that kind of thing. Your exmaple has the person actually being interested in the activity in the first place.

No "logical contradiction" in the real life situation, Rick...only in your mind.

In that same post I showed how it was YOU who left out relevant parts of her statement (you know, the part where she actually said that she does not support bestiality) while you claimed that she "never" said that?

So now you're pretending that she was sarcastic when she said they she opposed it? Ignoring what she said doesn't work anymore, eh?

Once in that same thread you went and looked at a completely different section of post where I had quoted her, while pretending that I had never done so. I had to straighten you out there.

Warden Reynold, when you can admit that you have misinterpreted Skatje Myers' sarcasm and admit that PZ Myers has refused to answer my simple, objective questions and instead has attacked me with insults...Oh, so his saying:

I do not support bestiality. No one I know does. But we are capable of assessing it objectively, unlike these wretched Christians and their brains full of lies and disgust. Let’s apply my moral tools to the problem:...and then going on to explain why somehow in your view does not count as answering your question as to whether bestiality is wrong?

This habit of taking answers you don't like and pretending that your questions were never answered is becoming annoying.

Havok has you pegged, you are just a sodding liar.

Those insults are well earned Warden...no matter how many times those people say that they're against it, you dismiss it and then you whine about being insulted.

- Thanks for showing some examples to support your claim (as usual). :-)

BTW - Reynold, if you read this, you can completely disregard all comments that utilize sarcasm from now on because now we all know that, according to your rules, there is no valid meaning at all when sarcasm is used.

I have already shown why I do not respond to people like Havok, who make repetitive false accusations. But if you believe, imnotandrei, that you have offered specific, valid questions that I have not addressed, please show exactly where they are. Show links. Thanks.

>And, furthermore, when will you get it through your head that your interlocutors... are not a unified bloc?

- More vague and unsupported comments. Oh my. When will there be some fresh and valid input from the atheist camp at this blog?

Rick: Thanks for showing some examples to support your claim (as usual). :-)They're so numerous it's like shooting ducks in a barrel. A small sample, from a couple of your "most viewed" posts, just from me are- here- here- here- here- here- here

And that is barely scratching the surface with the questions I have posed to you which remain unaddressed.imnotandrei has referenced his discussion of the Miller-Urey experiment on numerous occasions, and yet here you are feigning ignorance in order to try to score some points?That's stupid even for you.

It's a convenient dodge to claim someone hasn't given examples, since it can be tedious to trek back and find the comments in question. But you have got to know that it is a dodge Rick. You're an idiot, but you're surely not that much of an idiot, are you?

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html?showComment=1338437451390#c285245026623715569What makes multiverse theory so hard to buy but the existence of an intelligence without its own creator easy?

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/pastor-sentenced-to-2-years-in-prison.html?showComment=1338476860728#c6737114722122121068A discussion on Miller-Urey, in rebuttal to you:

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html?showComment=1338611694475#c4760858910378645032Can you perhaps answer something else, or is this going to be ad hominem ammunition for you? ;)

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html?showComment=1338745032928#c2447151554576604251Then why don't you ask your "deeper questions", and see if people will answer them, instead of using what looks like transparent quote-mine bait as a gatekeeper?

So, tell me, Rick, why is it a flip-flop when an atheist clarifies a position, while when you edit your own posts in the middle of arguments without telling people you're doing so, it's "clarification"?

You see, Rick, there's a double-standard here. And that's what I'm trying to get you to see.

Because you wouldn't accept that answer from anyone else -- you'd say "Why are you dodging my question?" or " is running away from my question".

Oh, and as oyu often do, I'll say: "Link to your answer, please."

As to the rest, you've managed to delete a bunch of questions, thus making me wonder *why*. Is it because you can't dismiss them as either "unspecific" or "invalid"? Because that's sure how it seems; you delete points or questions when you can't reply to them (e.g. the discussion of Christian governance in which you responded to the Catholic point with a No True Scotsman and deleted both Protestant examples, in the thread on beatings.)

So, your claim remains unsubstantiated and false.

Considering you're still deleting questions unanswered, I fail to see how this is. Why should anyone grant *your* questions special status? It's not because "This is your blog", because you've gone and harassed other people on theirs and complained when they didn't answer your questions.

>And, furthermore, when will you get it through your head that your interlocutors... are not a unified bloc?

- More vague and unsupported comments. Oh my. When will there be some fresh and valid input from the atheist camp at this blog?

Vague and unsupported? How about the fact that Reynold and I don't agree on things -- as you tried to use as a claim to support yourself above, so don't even think about wiggling out of it. We're not all in agreement on things, me, Reynold, Havok, PZ Myers -- we just all happen to agree that you're a quote-mining fool. Heck, we don't even agree whether it's better to engage with you (as Reynold, Havok and I are doing) or simply mock you and let you sit and steam and sulk (like PZ Myers) ;)

And as for the "original" -- perhaps when you stop trying to beat a dead horse yourself, because you're the one who's abandoned all other discussion to focus increasingly on "who owes who an apology, if anyone does, because PZ Myers won't answer your questions" or whatever inane details of that discussion you're trying to have.

As far as Havoks claims are concerned, let's not forget that he is not interested in civilized discourse and not a relevant contributor to this blog:

This is a blog spam-filter reply,

In the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, and for the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commenter named Havok.

Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address valid critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence." However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.

Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.

Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics in an article,"How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide" (VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics). If a third person, a civilized person, believes that Havok has offered a valid point and would like to summarize it in some type of logical format, I would be willing to entertain it. In any event, Havok is a good object lesson. His consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.

Rick: As far as Havoks claims are concerned, let's not forget that he is not interested in civilized discourse and not a relevant contributor to this blog:As far as Rick's claims are concerned, we know that he is an unrepentand liar who is unconcerned with the truth or honesty, and is not interested in honest dialogue, but rather with reinforcing his failed belief system.

>What makes multiverse theory so hard to buy but the existence of an intelligence without its own creator easy?

- The multiverse theory is not based on any physical evidence nor is it based on valid philosophical logical deduction. It is mainly based on atheist presuppositionalism: If the earth and our solar system are fine-tuned for life, then there must supposedly be an infinite number of universes in order to allow for the odds of our universe to exists as it does.

From a philosophical perspective, beginning a paradigm with a mere presupposition is usually not considered kosher. It is not a logically strong starting point. From this materialist hypothetical foundation, suggesting that an infinite number of things must exist because we exist is a second step of faith.

On the other hand, the concept of an infinite creator is not a logical problem, as you and others suggest, when the question is properly understood. Imnotandrei, I wrote an article on this subject and you did not offer one comment at that post. If you would like to debate this subject at the appropriate post, you are welcome to:

Thank you for finally *answering* this question, though why directing it to a thread other than the one it was *asked* on, let alone the one it was *answered* on, (as this is a new answer, as far as I can tell) is odd behavior indeed.

As it is, I may well cut-and-paste your answer here and respond there.

Oh, and: Imnotandrei, I wrote an article on this subject and you did not offer one comment at that post.

Guess what? I am actually not under an *obligation* to answer any post you make. And if you'd said, the *first* time I posted that, "I think this is answered here", then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I've noticed you tend to edit your posts without telling people (thus making their replies confusing at best) and the idea of rebutting someone in an entirely different post, without linking or indicating that's what you think you're doing, is not terribly effective either, though at least it is more *honest* than the post-edits.

As I mentioned, I had already answered your question. The first aspect of it was answered May 30, 2012 (8:35 PM) in earlier comments:

"Though there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for multiverse theories, atheists scientists had to come up with some explanation for the fine-tuned universe. An infinite number of universes out there somewhere would help to offer a chance that our universe 'just happened' as noted:

In 2008, cosmologist Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University of London, told a science journalist for Discover the following:

If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse."

Does God Need a Designer?http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/does-god-need-designer.html

Of course you are not obligated to comment on any of my posts, but it would seem logical that answers you are looking for might be better addressed if you were to read related articles and if you engaged in dialogue regarding the content of articles related to your questions. Does that make any sense to you, Imnotandrei?

I notice that you did not respond to my rebuttal when you responded to the comment.

(Indeed, the section you quote doesn't explain anything about my question, which was "why is multiverse theory so hardto buy, but an uncreated creator easy?" It answers "Why one would need multiverse theory". This is not the question you were asked, so pretending you "already answered it" is disingenous at best.)

forgive me for not tracking down the last response I made to your quote-mining.

As to the second aspect -- you'll notice I've responded to you there.

but it would seem logical that answers you are looking for might be better addressed if you were to read related articles and if you engaged in dialogue regarding the content of articles related to your questions. Does that make any sense to you, Imnotandrei?

It does. It doesn't explain why you wanted to ask questions about PZ Myers and bestiality in a thread about free speech -- which is all I 'm trying to point out here; that you hold a massive double-standard in terms of requiring people to respond where you wish, and then complaining when other people ignore your demands.

WardenIf there are any atheists with valid and clear points to make regarding support for atheism, now would be a good time to appear and present them.Havok and imnotandrei are slapping you down enough in that other thread.

Now, posting in two aprts, to see if this avoids your overzealous spamfilter:

I did not see any coherent rebuttal at that link.

Then you weren't reading. I pointed out that your quote-as-evidence was taken out of context, and didn't support your argument, and then went on to point out that arguing by analogy that "humans design heirarchical [1] systems, therefore heirarchical systems must have designers" can be responded to with "humans design flawed systems, there exist non-human-designed flawed systems, therefore the designer must be flawed."

If you fail to see why that is a coherent rebuttal, then that's your problem, not mine.

But thanks for pointing out that I did respond to your comment. I guess you've just refuted yourself:

"Why should Reynold bother answering any of your questions, when you never answer anyone else's? (June 7, 2012 8:09 AM)"

So sorry -- I should have said "hardly ever." Clearly, this invalidates all my other points, since I used one piece of hyperbole.

Though I do now see why your "proofs" (really, probabilitistic arguments) are laden with "Probably" or "it is most likely that" -- since clearly, if you ever misplaced a word or used hyperbole, you'd be invalid as well. [2]

If there are any atheists with valid and clear points to make regarding support for atheism, now would be a good time to appear and present them.

Considering that I've made many points, and your general response is to either ignore them completely, delete them and respond only to bits and pieces (e.g. pulling Catholic governance out of a list of religious governance, carefully omitting responding to the Protestants on the list), or go off on tangents about my opinions of other people's opinions on other people's sex lives, I admit I wonder what the point would be in doing so, sometimes.

I suppose Matthew 7:6 is relevant here, though I suspect we disagree as to who the swine are. ;)

But I will give you an argument, and even put it in your preferred A-B-C form, so you can't deny its clarity, and we'll see how you argue against it:

A) When in doubt, it is best not to generate new types of objects in order to explain something that does not require them. (Occam's Razor)B) Multiverse theory grows out of modern cosmological explanation, without requiring additional types of objects or forces.C) Therefore, any theory that does require such additional objects has the burden of proof upon it, since B) satisfies A).

D) An uncreated Creator must be something outside of physical law -- immaterial/metaphysical/etc.E) If so, it is of a category of objects we have never directly experienced -- only posited to explain things we did not understand, or have evidence from only from texts of uncorroborated validity.F) Therefore, an uncreated Creator does not satisfy the conditions of A), above.

The burden of proof thus lies upon people asserting the existence of same, and given that its very nature is to be undetectable -- since it is immaterial/etc. -- evidence for such a being is going to be difficult to find, at best.

There. There's a start of an argument, Rick. Your turn.

[1] "Hierarchical" is in scoff-quotes because you have yet to respond to the argument that the main example of such you've cited (orbitals of electrons and orbits of planets) is primarily a *linguistic* similarity, since the forces and behaviors of both things are vastly different on fundamental levels.

[2] This strikes to my point that you seem far more concerned with being right at any cost (including going to ludicrous lengths to defend minor points, spamming your own blog because of what you perceive as one poster's incorrectness, and editing your posts (without letting people know you've done so.) than actual discussion or, indeed, value of your own points.

>OK. I have now tried three times, twice with the same comment, and it keeps vanishing -- I wanted to let you know, just as a bug report.

- I've noticed several extremely long posts of yours in the spam filter. You might want to consider why your comments have been automatically marked by the Blogger spam filter and adjust your methods of commenting accordingly.

Quantity does not equal quality. You might want to take some time to meditate a bit on the subject matter and form clear and concise statements. You will find that this will make for a more fruitful dialogue and debate.It seems that you become reckless in your thinking and words and make increasingly useless and meandering comments.

Well, when I am short, you dismiss my points as not "coherent". When I am detailed, you claim they are not concise. Take your pick.

You will find that this will make for a more fruitful dialogue and debate.

Considering you ignore large parts of my statements, I fail to see how this will actually help.

t seems that you become reckless in your thinking and words and make increasingly useless and meandering comments.

Unlike, for example, your arguments which are so short as to be mere "summaries" that cannot be relied on for rigour? I know repeatedly you've said things to the effect of "Well, I can't be comprehensive, I was summarizing" -- thus trying to insulate yourself from correction.

If you can't handle lengthy replies to your lengthy posts, then that is *your* problem.

Also -- I find it interesting that your spam filter is suddenly catching them *now*, when I have repeatedly made multiple-post responses to you in the past because I was hitting the 4,096 character limit.

I also find it amusing that my posts repeatedly *appear* on your blog, as I have screencaps, and then disappear; this is unusual behavior for a spam filter.

(I notice you are also editing your disclaimer, presumably to try and further insulate yourself from criticism and adverse comment -- since you insist that your commenters relate their comment to your post, while you feel no such compunction in your own rebuttals.)